LH delivered OP and his 13 fellow passengers late, but apparently in time to make their onward connection. That is the end of LH's obligation and the fact that OP +13 ultimately arrived at their final ticketed destination is the result of a decision taken by NZ which is neither an EU carrier not was the flight departing from the EU. Thus, no EU cancellation (delay) compensation applies.

Those who suggest that LH may be liable for compensation are misconstruing the facts. Had LH's delay caused OP to misconnect, the length of the delay would be measured at AKL and at 24 hours would far exceed the EC 261/2004 minimum for a Type III flight. Hence EUR 600 compensation would be due.

MCT is a red herring. It is an industry-created standard for selling tickets. Once the ticket is sold, it is of no consequence. One either connects or misconnects. OP apparently connected but NZ misjudged what would likely happen.

Of interest is that this situation is directly covered in Guidance, albeit non-binding but thoughtfully written and quite useful, published by the EU last June. If this connection had occurred within the EU or if NZ were an EU carrier, its decision to offload OP when he could in fact make the connection would entitle him to EC 261/2004 compensation as others here suggest.

Whether OP is due compensation for that delay and denial of boarding is a matter committed to the sound discretion of those who make the laws of Hong Kong and New Zealand.

LH can and should fight this. It has nothing to lose.